View Single Post
Old January 10, 2020, 01:59 AM   #76
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,868
Quote:
Cooked: This is easy. Explain how a bullet contacts the very base of the feed ramp on a Glock. Starts at the bottom of the ramp and zigzags up
The question was about what guns I had that left brass marks on the feedramp. I posted two pictures and then found another on the web that showed a similar effect.

We now have proof from multiple sources that bullets do, indeed, hit the feedramp during the feed cycle. It boggles the mind that such proof was necessary—one wonders what a feed ramp is for if not to direct cartridges into the chamber and how it could do that if fed rounds never made contact with it—but the proof has now been provided.
Quote:
So far I have not been able to find anything about set back in the owner's manual in the "5/04 form." If this is the case, shame face on Glock for keeping it a secret. That is, unless it has been discovered between 2004 and 2015.
Proof has been provided that the claim that “no firearm or cartridge manufacturer” provided warnings against setback is false. There have been no claims that the warning was in the Glock owner’s manual—the location of the warning was stated clearly. Concerns that there is no warning in the owner’s manual, should be taken up with Glock by those who are concerned about it, but that’s a separate issue.

We now have proof that at least one firearm manufacturer does provide a warning about setback. If you want to attempt to find more sources, you’re welcome to do so, but their presence or absence doesn’t change anything. Because the claim was sweeping (i.e. NO firearm or cartridge maker warns against setback) only one counterexample was required to debunk it.
Quote:
The full manual is for Glock armorers: The armorer that did the Glock workshop I attended did not share this set back information with us. He is a retired LEO. If set back is such a big deal how come it's not in the literature in the box? Was the Armorers manual for general use and in wide circulation? Nope.
Contact him and ask him why he didn’t cover it.
Quote:
Somebody help me with set back in Glock commonly circulated official owners literature. I'm not saying such is not there. If have not found in the owner manual. So far, no warning on set back has been found in the Ptooma Productions "The Complete Glock Reference Guide" If there is one in the book please point it out to me. Thanks for your help.
There have been no claims that there are setback warnings in “Glock commonly circulated official owners literature” or in any of Ptooma Production’s products.

If you want to find further warnings against setback, you should spend your own time doing your own research to satisfy your own curiosity. An official warning from a firearm manufacturer has been provided and that was all that was required to prove the claim was false.
Quote:
I have cited some specific information and requested that errors be pointed out.
And the errors have been pointed out. But instead of accepting the information (verifying that proof and information as appropriate where you felt there were legitimate concerns about accuracy) you merely changed the "target" or came up with new demands/objections.

Example 1: You claimed that bullets didn’t leave marks on feedramps. Pictures were posted to show that they do. You dismissed them as “cooked” even though they were from multiple sources and even though you could have easily verified their validity by finding other examples. And at the same time you made some nonsensical remarks about zigzags on the feedramp that don’t relate to any claims made on this thread or any pictures posted.

Example 2: You claimed that no firearm or cartridge maker warned against setback. Proof was posted that Glock has published an official warning about setback. Then, instead of accepting that your claim was false, you started asking about warnings in other Glock published materials or in books about Glocks published by other companies even though no one had made any claims about warnings existing in those materials.

Example 3: You claimed that setback is merely internet myth. Multiple firsthand accounts of setback in various guns and with various ammunition have been provided on this thread and yet you apparently dismiss all of them out of hand.

Example 4: You recommended looking at slow motion footage of a 1911 feeding. That footage was provided (before you recommended it, by the way), showing clearly that the round is driven forward into the feedramp and hesitates there upon impact, then the slide drives it forward and up the ramp into the chamber, clearly slowing due to the significant amount of energy required to accomplish that task. Apparently in spite of mentioning it repeatedly you either failed to look at it carefully (which seems likely given that you misidentified the gun in the footage as a Glock instead of accurately noting that it was a 1911) or simply dismissed the obvious visual evidence for no other reason than that it disagreed with your opinion.

Example 5: In post #60, you claimed that no one had explained about why no other rounds in the mag typically showed setback even though there was an explanation provided in post #58.

And so on...

If this thread is just going to become an exhibition of how creative one person can be in their attempts to dismiss substantive proof and/or in their attempts to change the subject/standard of proof as one after another of their claims are shown to be incorrect, then it's the definition of pointless.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03046 seconds with 8 queries